I'm no economic expert. I have a fuzzy, handwavy understanding about what's going on. It is getting clearer by the day. But I've got one thing to say to Congress.

Get it Right.

This bill should be about our financial system only. No pork. Zero. If timliness really is important, then it should take LESS time to negotiate a deal with no pork. Socialism Bad. Keep any government buy-in as small as possible, and put in controls that mandates that the government get out of it as soon as possible. Keep the mindset of the founding fathers and Ronald Reagan. Government is not the solution. Government is the problem.

Sunday, September 28, 2008

I feel like I'm being assaulted by Barack Obama. I see more ads with his mug on them on the internet on more pages every day. Just about "everywhere" I go on the superhighway. "The One"'s face will either by smiling at me telling me to vote, or looking serious to convince me he's "The One". It's getting pretty annoying.

Makes me want to vote for whoever that guy is who's running against him.

From Bob Parks. Hey, while you're out there, there's apparently been some shenanigans with Bob's employer and he's collecting money for expenses because, well, he didn't get paid for two months and will likely not ever see that money. I have a good friend who went through something eerily similar down in Texas a few years back. You'll see a tip jar there. Think about it. Bob provides some good commentary -- and has an enlightening piece on which party stands for keepin' the black man down.

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

I'm sure this is circulating via email everywhere. I may have even seen this before. But today I got it from my friend Leann and ... I' publishing it here. I think that most people can understand it.

Let's Have a Few Beers and Figure This Out

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.The fifth would pay $1.The sixth would pay $3.The seventh would pay $7.The eighth would pay $12.The ninth would pay $18.The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers, he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

'I only got a dollar out of the $20', declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!'

'Yeah, that's right', exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!'

'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'

'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!' The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

Well, that's what the ad I saw this morning from "The One" basically tried to get us to believe.

I made a connection this time, though (and this was before I had coffee) ...

The ad showed a bunch of people losing jobs that were being shipped overseas. Then threw up the verbage on the screen that McCain wants to give tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas.

First of all, they're playing a little game here... Technically, it's true. McCain wants to cut taxes to companies across the board. Since companies that "ship jobs overseas" are also companies, they, too, would get the tax break. (The ad's purpose is to lead you to believe that companies "shipping jobs" are being treated specially and rewarded for this behavior. And "The One's" campaign howls about dishonesty from McCain.)

Same goes for when they talk about tax cuts for oil companies. Oil companies are companies. An across the board tax break would give them a break as well.

But the ultimate argument here is .. why are these companies shipping jobs overseas? Well I'll guarantee you it's not because they're not paying high enough taxes. It's because operating in the U.S. is too expensive. Why is it too expensive? For one thing, we have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world. Plus there are matching payroll taxes that companies have to pay (yup, the taxes you see on your paystub aren't the only taxes being paid on your salary). Plus labor unions jack the price of labor up. Lawsuits because you don't have your quota of female purple-polkadotted people working for you. We're so rich and spoiled over here that we won't take less than a certain amount of money to work. People in India and elsewhere would kill to make half the money we do.

So how in the world do Democrats think keeping taxes on companies high or making them higher is going to keep jobs here in America? High taxes make it more expensive for companies to operate. Keeping them high or raising them will only enhance incentive to ship more jobs overseas.

Cutting them... cutting them just might make it less expensive to operate in the United States, decreasing the incentive to ship jobs overseas.

It's not a question of punishment and reward. Well at least not the way in the Democrats frame it. They frame a tax cut as rewarding the behavior of shipping jobs overseas. It's the opposite. Lower taxes reward companies for keeping their operations here.

And it leaves the choice up to them, no coercion necessary. It's called incentive.

a good salesman is something you need if the thing you’re trying to sell is a piece of junk.

I have a hunch. A "sneakin' hunch", as my father used to say. And that hunch is that Obama was, indeed, chosen. But not by God. He was chosen by the likes of William Ayres and George Soros to sell America the piece of junk that is transnational socialism. He was chosen for one talent, and one talent only. Salesmanship. It's the only thing he does. He was also chosen as a symbol - Geraldine Ferarro was right. We're constantly being told we're all racists. Most of us resent that, because most of us are not racist. But here, here is a chance to prove once and for all that you're not -- and by the way if you vote the other way it'll prove that you are... as a shiny wrapper for the piece of junk they're trying to get him to sell.

Even pretty. I think the image to the left here erased any remaining association with "cute" or "attractive" I ever had concerning her.

We're looking at an image here of a very, very insecure person who is in constant need of affirmation. I think this is what draws a lot of people to Progressive Politics and its associated activism. (It also draws a lot of people into the performing arts). They want attention. They want the "atta-girls" and "atta-boys" -- which Janeane gets plenty of on Maher's show. Look at the image of the same woman to the lower right. I mean, that's a beautiful woman. But she has, for some reason, chosen to mark up her body and go on national television with her massive ink exposed with and with stringy (dirty? sure looks it) hair -- why? So people will take her seriously when she rolls her eyes and mocks people in the nastiest of tones and as if she has a clue what she's talking about -- or even as if she actually let the person she's mocking complete a thought to mock -- all to the adoring applause of the studio audience and the hoards of young activists who think she's sockin' it to 'em? She comes off as a bitter, insolent adolescent. She goes to the well, her bag of snarky leftist talking point soundbites to score ego points. Too bad. I get the impression she has some intelligence, but has chosen not to use it for reason -- I'm guessing because she doesn't trust her own ability to reason.

She appears instead to use it to rationalize psuedo-arguments to support the narrative of the Church of Progressivism. And she does this precisely to feed her hunger for approval. But it's never enough, because subconsiously she knows it's not her own reason she's defending. So she has to do it again. And again. And again. The lights are on in there, but it's a house of mirrors inside. A fun house with recursive reflections and warped mirrors.

I get this because I have a theory about a lot of actors and actresses. If you find them basically playing the same character over and over and they excel at that playing that character -- it's usually becuase they aren't really acting. They're playing themselves. Garofalo does basically play the same character in everything she's been in. A cynical outsider with a snappy sense of sarcasm, whose also actually pretty vulnerable beneath that protective shell. She nails that character every time. It's because that's her.

I always feel a little dumber, and a little dirty (as in "unclean") after clicking on a progressive link. It's a little like whenever I watch something like, say, "The Bachelor". Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd are on my "don't click" list after having read a few too many of their spewings. Of course, every now and then I get that "oh, what are they sayin' now? bit of curiosity and click. I always regret it.

I wish I could say I didn't click on this one: McCain Clings to Old Republican Mantra ... but I can't. Yes, I saw that it was on one of my "don't click" sites, The Progressive ... and I did it anyway. I'm pleading a WTF? moment.

Why is it that when Republicans stick to what the believe, they're "clinging" and when Democrats stick to what they believe, they're steadfast and true and brave and all?

Of course, the actual headline once you get there is "Grandpa and Barbie on the Economy".

I hear time and again from liberals that conservatives are "mean" and "sexist" and "racists" and "x-ophobes" and make personal attacks instead of talking about The Issues™. I've gotta ask, where is the similar conservative headline? In any major conservative publication? Where's the "Sambo and the Geezer" headline? There isn't one.

I watched an "interview" (if you can call it that) with John Fund on whatever the heck Bill Maher's show is (Real Time, Episode 132). No, I didn't tune in on purpose ahead of time, I heard Fund on Dennis Miller and went out to YouTube to watch the Maher ... uh ... thingy.

It looks like that stuff's been pulled from YouTube today due to HBO copyright violations. But here's some of what I remember. In Maher's monologue he referred to Palin's daughter's pubic hair. That was the low point, but there was plenty more such base "humor" directed at the Mrs. Palin and her family.

During the "discussion", every time John was asked a question, he was interrupted -- typically within the first two sentences of his answer. It was kind of like, "We're going to ask you a question and then keep changing the question and introduce one red herring after another before you get a chance to answer them, all the while hurling cliches and snarky comments at you from all sides."

And then we got web headlines like "Maher and Garafalo Destroy Fund's Defense of Palin". What? What did they destroy? Fund wasn't allowed to get a word in edgewise to defend Palin.

Talking about Sarah Palin herself, we got:

"...stewardess ... beauty pagent ... 'I shot one once' ... when you're a hockey mom with five kids you don't have time to read the newspaper ...she couldn't talk about an issue to save her life ... doesn't know shit from shinola ... "

There was a lot more of this terribly "substantial" mockery, but like I said the video is unavaliable to me now.

And in there somewhere Garafalo (who I used to like) said "You guys are the kings of petty, nasty rhetoric". Then ticks off the litany of her religion:

What do they stand for? Torture as a policy. They stand for homophobia. They stand for no reproductive justice. They stand for denying global warming.

Well ... like Morgan said... we do look pretty silly when people pretend we believe things we don't believe.

Thursday, September 18, 2008

I'm not sure how I even got to this site today. Probably the same way I did a few days ago. Accidentally clicked on a link on a site I visit regularly. RCP? Who knows. Anyway, I'd registered and left a comment on an article ... I can't even remember what that was about now.

I got to the end and thought... gee that sounded familiar. I started reading it again. It sounded familiar because I'm the one who wrote it. And indeed at the top was a link to my blog.

It turns out it's part my "Official Global Warming Position" post, and the verbiage selected for the splicetodayarticle is basically a rewrite of an essay I'd written a few years before on an old website of mine.

The introduction to the article was basically complimentary, but I did have to take issue with the suggestion of it being based on "scientifically unsound tenants". Was it the "the earth has never been in a static balance" part? Or was it the examples I gave:

...the planet has changed dramatically, often catastrophically, without any input from humans in the past. Gigantic super-volcano eruptions, asteroids and comets, wobbles in the tilt of the planet, orbital variations, and variations in solar output have all caused massive extinctions, changes in global vegetation, ice, temperature, sea levels, etc over the millennia.

Because those are the only places in the excerpt used that had anything to do with science, and I'll stand by them.

Anyway -- I'm glad to see it out there getting some circulation. If only some of the far-left zealots would recognize what they're doing and rein themselves in -- perhaps the public discourse would settle down to a civil tone.

Now I'm not saying the Democrats are "in the pocket". But you can be darned sure if the numbers were reversed you'd be hearing that the Republicans are. Well, you're hearing that anyway.

What's really insteresting here is that these are career totals. Dodd and Kerry are senate veterans. Obama's a one-term senator (from a cow-town in Illinios ... buddump bump). He's certainly done well in his short tenure.

Almost all liberal/Leftist thought and action is, at its heart, really the advocacy of the destruction of the existing social order. All else is a mere progressive mask to fool the idealist rubes into believing that this ongoing destruction will actually make things better. It hasn’t yet, and it won’t. - ejm (commenter on House of Eratosthenes)

I am under 45 years old, I love the outdoors,I hunt,I am a Republican reformer,I have taken on the Republican Party establishment,I have many children, I have a spot on the national ticket as vice president with less than two years in the governor's office. Did you guess? (Highlight below for answer)

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Even though Hitler telegraphed his punches, few people seemed to get the message. Books about that period have had such titles as "The Gathering Storm" and "Why England Slept."

Will future generations wonder why we slept? Why we could not see the gathering storm in Iran, where one of the world's leading oil producers is building nuclear facilities-- ostensibly to generate electricity, but whose obvious purpose is to produce nuclear bombs.

This is a country whose president has already threatened to wipe a neighboring country off the map. Does anyone need to draw pictures?

When terrorists get nuclear weapons, there will be no way to deter suicide bombers. We and our children will be permanently at the mercy of the merciless.

Yet what are we talking about? Taxing and spending policies, socking it to the oil companies and rescuing people who gambled on risky mortgages and lost.

Monday, September 15, 2008

So I'm reading this article (which is a fun read, by the way -- if you are on the same side of the culture war as I am). I'm not expecting big riots neccessarily ... but all the same I'm making sure I have plenty of ammo. And by "ammo".... I mean ammo. Stuff that goes boom and throws lead out at high velocities.

Anyway, I get to the comments. I see this one:

"What is going to happen if Obama loses is the biggest Brain Drain this country has ever seen. I already know many colleagues and associates who have relocated to Europe where there's less prejudice against intellectuals and a more realistic societal model. It won't be the fault of the left when it happens. The know-nothing US electorate will have had two chances to make the correct decision and throw the neocon bums out. Those of us who knew better all along, who saw 9-11 not as an excuse for war but as an opportunity to show America's greatness by rising above it, who protested against the Iraq invasion while most of the country was still in the throes of Bush-worshipping wishful thinking, will only be victimized by the rest of you gullible fools for so long. This is your last chance to get it right - or you WILL be on your own."

"As much as I like Bush, I learned early on you don't put a Bush sticker on your car. There are too many morons out there who think it's noble civil disobedience statement to key your car if it has a Bush sticker, you know 'by whatever means necessary'"

Friday, September 12, 2008

I'm sure this happens all across the country. I know it happens on college campuses. It definitely does here. I know. It just happened to me.

Lady I work with. I've known her for 12 years, and I know her political views quite well. I hear them all the time. I keep mine quiet around her because I know they differ drastically from hers and frankly, I don't think much of hers and I'm afraid it might come out. We're friendly toward each other -- we have some other stuff in common. Like a greater than average interest in weather-related things.

So she comes over to tell me about Geraldo Rivera and how she can't stand him and she saw him on the news at the gym reporting from Galveston and he got knocked over, mid-report, by a wave. And she loved it. It was like the hand of God slapping him down. I said it's cool that we have some people down there reporting on it so that we can see some of what it's like, because I know better than to be down there myself right now even if I could go. And she said well if someone's going to get killed, better him than anyone else. I politely said I wouldn't wish that on anyone and that I wasn't going there.

Then she went on a rant about her completely dismissing him when he went to "The Dark Side" by going to "Fix" or "Faux" News, and how they watch CNN. But they turn to "Faux" News occasionally just to see how "The Other Side" thinks, because "they're the ones that are screwing everything up for everybody".

"Know your enemies", she said.

Talk about uncomfortable. I was stunned. She was talking to me as if "of course" I agreed with her. This is often the case especially at college. But liberals often believe that everybody but the hicks and Big Business is a liberal, and nudge, nudge, chuckle, chuckle.

I thought she should, by now, at least have an inkling that I'm not a liberal. But maybe not. I do try to keep it quiet because of where I work and I don't like confrontation. Especially with someone who works in the cube next to me.

Now, frankly, I did watch Fox News for a while after 9/11. I went there from CNN et. al. because I got tired of the Blame America First navel-gazing going on there. If you ask me, Fox is at least as fair as anyone else. Everyone knows they have a conservative editorial take on things -- so naturally I'd like their editorials better. Most (not all) of their conservative commentators usually even try to play devil's advocate with themselves. Their news is pretty straight.

Even so, 24 hour "News" channels eventually just turned me off, and I turned them off. I haven't watched them other than very occasionally for years. Everything is over-talked, over-analyzed, and on the "panel" shows, they're not interested in anybody presenting a full, coherent argument, and the other guy's counter argument. They want to air a fight with people shouting over each other. All of them. I have no use for that. Which is why I prefer to read my news. There's no shouting over each other, and the writer gets to complete his thought and I can see for myself the full arguments and decide which makes sense.

That being said - typically when I do watch cable news, it's gonna be Fox. Their editorial arguments are often too emotion-based for my tastes (kind of like MSNBC, CNN, etc), but their hearts are in the right place and at least most of their conclusions match up with mine.

Incidentally, if you've been following along in your readers... yes, it was the same woman who prompted this post.

And it pisses me off sometimes that in the name of politeness we have to sit quietly and hear ourselves called all kinds of names to our faces and the person standing there has no clue that they're insulting me and calling me their enemy, while pretending to be my friend.

Kind of like the Massechuttes liberals sitting next to me at a Charlie Daniels show at HEUG a couple of years ago in Nashville looking for a pat on the back from me when they said "Yeah, we're proud liberals! We're Dixie Chicks fans." Yeah, bet they'd never heard of the Dixie Chicks until Natalie opened her pie-hole. And I had to wonder if they had any clue what Charlie Daniels was singing about.

Thursday, September 11, 2008

I was at work, which was at the time in a basement. I had instant messenger up. My best friend and I live 130 miles apart, and we typically have sort of a sparse, all-day conversation going on. He works at a radio station conglomerate in Kansas City.

Mark: "Oh my God, an airplane just crashed into the World Trade Center."Me: "Like a little airplane?"Mark: "No, like a commercial jet. Oh my God, I'm watching it now."Me: "Crap. That was no accident."

Moments later, he IM'ed me that a second plane just hit. He watched it live.

News sites were locked up. You couldn't get any information without turning on a radio or a TV.

Wednesday, September 10, 2008

When I saw it in writing this morning, I thought conservatives were blowing it way out of proportion. When I heard the audio, I think it was pretty clear that he was referring to Palin. The crowd certainly thought so, and I don't think he was caught by surprise.

That being said, like I just said in that last post -- it's fine to cry foul. It's fine to point out the hypocrisy of the double-standard. We can point out stupidity. We can use sarcasm and other rhetorical tools to make our points. But let's not whine, and let's not demand apologies.

I hear McCain wants Obama to apologize for the "lipstick on a pig" comment. That'd be great if he would, but I don't think we should ask for one. We should just let 'em keep it up.

If they got too out of hand and got explicitly nasty about Sarah or John, I'd just say "hey, that's beyond the pale" -- but even then, don't demand an apology.

This day and age of demanding apologies is -- I don't know -- a little whiney. A little childish. (Yes, we should still make our children apologize so they learn to do it on their own before they are adults.) But once they are adults, we should just call a spade a spade and say "Hey. That was wrong. I think less of you now" and leave it at that. We all know what is rude and what is acceptable. The adults will decide who the adults are and who the children are.

So it is with the whole "gotcha" soundbite thing. I heard the Obama comment about (and he was making an effort to appear fair to McCain when he said it) that John McCain hadn't said anything about Obama's "Muslim Faith" ... that was a slipup (and I think we're going to see a lot more of that in the next 60 days when Obama's off-script. It's now clear why he backed out of the Town Hall meetings with McCain) -- but really... we all misspeak and anybody who's been paying attention to the flurry of charges against Obama on the internet and elsewhere would know he was addressing the allegation that he is some sort of secret Muslim. And praising McCain for not supporting that or buying into it. Of course it was the first part of a back-handed compliment, but... that's politics, I suppose.

It was like the 57 states or New Pensylvania. Misspeaking. For which Bush (90th percentile intelligence, flew fighter jets, 3.6 MBA at Harvard) gets accused of being stupid.

And that's what I want to talk about here, really, is double-standards. Most of the time when I bring up some sort of complaint about something the Left has said to bash someone on the right, it's not as much about what they said, but about the double standard. Democrat picks a woman to do anything, it's Historical™ and an Advancement™ for women. Republicans pick a woman or minority, and it's at best "Oh, look, a bunny! No really, over there! Nothing to see here." And here with Palin it's far worse. "It's a backward step for women". "She's not really a woman."

Because you know if your beliefs are outside of Gloria Bunker's Steinem's, you're not really a woman. Used to be all you needed was two X chromosomes. Now you have to pass a test. It's a club, apparently.

I don't identify as a Republican because I don't have an allegience to any political party. By that I mean that I don't believe what I believe because that's what my political party tells me to believe. I tend to vote for the political party most likely to advance the cause of the things I believe in. Right now it appears to be the Republican party. Reviews have been mixed in the past 8 years. On the war and security, they've been relatively solid, mostly thanks to George Bush's political courage and leadership in these areas. They mostly say the right things about illegal immigration, energy, and economic policy, giving some lip service to controlling government size ... but so many have slipped.

Since I'm voting that way, I'd like it to be the party of adults. We don't whine, they do. We are critical, but we're not playground bullies. We will defend our positions when they become unpopular. We will promote our causes with effective PR so that people know and understand what we are really about. When people misrepresent us, we will firmly and politely (the first couple of times) correct them. (We may get stern after that.) We do not intentionally mislead. We have nothing to hide. We don't play "gotcha" with trivial soundbites out of context.

I could be a part of that "we". Even if it isn't Republicans in general, I'd like my fellow conservatives to adopt this. Most of them are probably already on board with this. But the deal is, if we play by these rules and they don't, we're allowed to point it out. They will look bad. Perhaps they will learn to behave. Then everybody's the better for it. It would sure make it easier for me to defend the GOP.

We run around playing the same games they do, and there's no crying "foul" when they foul. We do that, and they can just look back and raise an eyebrow and foul again. Let's not give in to rumors and innuendo. Let's check our facts, and admit when we are wrong.

In the end, I think the electorate wants adults in office. Adults aren't people who went to big fancy schools and majored in law or polisci.

Adults can take a punch. Adults are people who know how to conduct themselves.

(I know, it sounds kind of sexist, but "person up" just doesn't have the same ring to it.)

I have mentioned a few places on the web that according to former Shell President John Hoffmeister (long out of the oil business) said that oil companies were actually losing a little money on gasoline there for a while (while making up for it in diesel and jet fuel).

Turns out I misheard him. I watched that interview again the other night, and what he said was that they were losing some margin on gasoline. Which means they were still making money on it, just not as much as they would normally expect.

Of course, in a Liberal world, that means a loss. Because to them if you don't raise taxes as fast as you were going to, that's a "cut". And when Palin only raised funding for pregnant teens by 354% instead of 454%, that was also a "cut".

McCain/Palin supporters might want to read this. Of course, I always encourage more research if you have time. The more you know, the more you can shut the pie-holes of Idiotarians swallowing the (D) Party Line. You might not change their minds. But you might stop them from changing the minds of others who are listening.

Mrs. Palin also killed the infamous Bridge to Nowhere in her own state. Yes, she once supported the project: But after witnessing the problems created by earmarks for her state and for the nation's budget, she did what others like me have done: She changed her position and saved taxpayers millions. Even the Alaska Democratic Party credits her with killing the bridge.

When the Senate had its chance to stop the Bridge to Nowhere and transfer the money to Katrina rebuilding, Messrs. Obama and Biden voted for the $223 million earmark, siding with the old boys' club in the Senate. And to date, they still have not publicly renounced their support for the infamous earmark.

I first gotta ask, was she looking at the same woman I was? Did she see the same speech I did? If so, then she has some deeply warped predudices that she should have professionally addressed. And I don't put a lot of stock in that schtick, but at this point the woman should try anything to get over herself and her bitterness.

Fortunately, a few commenters got it right. Here's one:

Webster defines bigot as "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance". The differences between Ms. Mallick and a deep south Klan member number but 2. The group at which the hatred is aimed at and fashion sense. It is quite sad when such bile passes for an argument, or even commentary.

The sad part is all of the comments saying "way to go, Juan", "we need more people to tell the truth like Juan Cole", and "wake up, people, we've been living in a theocracy for the past 8 years" and on and on and on.

And I'm just scratching my head wondering if there's some parallel universe where any of this makes any kind of sense... and of course there is. It's the universe inside the collective heads of the far Left.

The actual title of the article is: What's the difference between Palin and Muslim fundamentalists? -- Lipstick

Which would be clever if it wasn't so patently absurd. I mean, as I commented on the comments thread, if this is true then why hasn't Bristol been stoned to death by her family?

I mean, imgagine these two scenarios ... You're an agnostic woman. You dress in a hajib and some sort of recognizably Muslim culture form of feminine dress ... walk down the street in an American town full of Christian fundamentalists. What happens to you?

At worst, you get a few funny looks.

Now imagine you're dressed in some sort of modern Western dress, maybe a pair of shorts, or like Sara Jessica Parker, and you're walking through a small Afghani town full of Islamic fundamentalists. Or maybe you're a couple of Christian school girls walking to school.

At best, you get kidnapped or arrested. At worst, your head gets lopped off with a large knife. Perhaps after being raped, since you're an infidel whore and Allah specifically allows it.

Monday, September 08, 2008

VIN SUPRYNOWICZ of the Las Vegas Review Journal made a few observations about the choice of Palin for Veep and what it has precipitated in the Democratic Left. It's worth a read. But this bit really stuck out at me.

Why the desperation?

Because Vice President Sarah Palin would mean Americans could actually end up electing a woman president without tapping a manipulative, soulless, stay-married-just-to-stay-in-power socialist.

I had kind of pushed that little bit about the failed Democratic candidate to the side and pretty much forgotten about it. Perhaps out of charity. But the shoe doeth appear to fit, doesn't it?

This is like my mother-in-law's argument that all we need to do to get rid of guns is outlaw the manufacture and sale of ammunition.

That approach has worked so well with drugs, hasn't it? (and never mind that pesky second amendment.)

It's exemplary of Progressive thinking. "X" is bad. Outlaw "X", or anything that might be used for "X".

And today I see another problem and a Progressive solution: Speed Kills. Outlaw Speed. Hmm... well we've already done that. Speed's still killing. Ok, outlaw the manufacture of cars that are capable of speeding.

But unlike drinking, which requires the police, breathalyzers and coercion to improve drivers’ behavior, there’s a simple way to prevent speeding: quit building cars that can exceed the speed limit.

Most cars can travel over 100 miles an hour — an illegal speed in every state. Our continued, deliberate production of potentially law-breaking devices has no real precedent. We regulate all sorts of items to decrease danger to the public, from baby cribs to bicycle helmets. Yet we continue to produce fast cars despite the lives lost, the tens of billions spent treating accident victims, and a good deal of gasoline wasted.

Sigh.

Never mind the idea that more regulation of everything is a good thing. Hell, everyone who has ever died, was conceived. It's simple. If we just outlawed conception, there would eventually be no deaths. None at all!!!! And hey, since it's been shown that sex leads to conception, let's outlaw sex!(and that would be "good for 'The Environment™' too! Everybody wins!)

Criminey!

Class, can anyone think of any reason why having a car that can exceed the maximum speed limit would be a good thing? Anyone? No?

Kid bleeding to death, need to get her to the hospital ASAP? Run across a dangerous situation on the highway while moving at the speed limit, and speeding up would get you out of that situation? Perhaps you would like to race your car on a race track where it's legal(wait, that's only for those gun totin', God clingin' rednecks. I forgot. Y'all get to tell us all what to do, because you've "moved on". You're better than us. You know better. If only we'd do as you say, everything would be all right.)

"You haven't seen 'Borat'? Oh, you have to see that movie! They poke fun at Americans."

This woman was born, raised, educated, and has had a pretty long career in America.

I'm not saying a movie that pokes fun at us is necessarily bad. It's good to have a sense of humor about ourselves. I like "Team America", for cryin' out loud (except for a couple of over-the-top "uncomfortable humor" scenes involving sexual acts). That's not what made me do a mental double-take.

It was knowing this woman's leanings and judging by her tone of voice, it was almost as if she doesn't consider herself an American.

Saturday, September 06, 2008

You hear this term used all the time. This is one of those moments where we need Inigo Montoya:

"Why you keep using that word? I dunnut think i' means wha' you think it means."

"Elitist" doesn't equate to "rich". It doesn't mean "educated", or "ivy league educated", "royal", or even "privileged". It's the belief that because you belong to some "elite" group that you are now qualified to run to the head of the line of people who get to tell everyone else what to do. It is the belief that you are somehow better than those who don't belong to whatever group you feel entitles you to pontificate and be taken seriously.

I've never once heard John McCain say, "I'm rich. Therefore, I know better." It's always "here's what I think we ought to do and here's why." He has appealed to our sense of trust by showing us his character and a bit about where it came from -- and that he has a long history of it. But he doesn't say "I served, therefore I can tell you what to do." He says, "Here's a sample of things I've been through and the kinds of decisions I've made. You can trust my character." He knows he isn't perfect and when he says he knows that, you believe him. But not because he owns 6 or 7 houses, and not because his wife is wealthy, and not because his grandfather and father were high-ranking Navy officers. Not because of his education or any clubs he belonged to.

Obama clearly believes cosmopolitan is better than mainstreet. Small-town and rural America is misguided. Religious people are ignorant. Government knows better than we do how to distribute the fruits of our labor. That is elitism.

Oh, and this stupid Sam Cooke song commercial The Savior has been running against McCain, using McCain's admission that he isn't an economic expert -- asinine. I trust a guy who says he knows he isn't an expert ... to consult experts. I don't think for a second Obama knows any more about economics that McCain does. I think McCain is just more willing to be self-deprecating. A little thing called "humility".

What I do know is that Obama's economic philosophy is Socialism, while McCain's is more akin to Capitalism. Each will take advice in light of their respective philosophies. You already know which one I'm more partial to.

* 35 years or over. Check.* Natural born American Citizen. Check.* Hasn’t served two terms as President. Check.

Maybe there’s something in there about no felonies, but I’ve seen some third party tickets that had some questionable people on them so that might not even be one. Either way, check.

After that it’s a matter of opinion. And isn’t that why we vote? I mean, if qualification was all “fact” based, we could just feed resumes into a computer and it would spit out the “most qualifed” person. No election necessary.

So is Obama technically qualified for the job as well? Yes.

Would I hire him? No.

See, we insist on inspecting things that are important to us, such as Character (which both McCain and Palin have in spades), positions on issues we care about, and effectiveness (I like a candidate who actually takes a “yes” or “no” position on issues — but not being one doesn’t “disqualify” you, technically. However, it does disqualify you from my vote … because my list is longer than the above, and I get to make the list.)

Frankly, I look at her record and she has a lot more concrete one than he does. He's had various job titles, she has a list of actual accomplishments to show for the jobs she's had. To sweeten the deal, they're mostly accomplishments I approve of, and she follows a basic philosophy I approve of.

He has TWO memoirs. And he's only 47. And that speaks volumes (yes, pun intended). You'd think he'd sailed the globe or summited Everest or something, or ended some international feud somewhere in the mideast. Or even the Caribbean. Polynesia?

I don't like him. He's a socialist, and narcissistic self-appointed Messiah. We here in flyover country don't take too well to that type. The first one disqualifies him in my mind, and the second removes any lingering doubt I might have had about my judgement on the first.

Thursday, September 04, 2008

I haven't watched The Tonight Show in a very long time. It came on after the convention coverage tonight.

I remember Jay from his standup comic days. Always kinda liked him. But he turned me off tonight, and I turned him off.

After leading off with "Obama got beat up by a girl", the rest of the monologue consisted of jokes that mainly repeated the main talking points of the Left. Republicans are nasty, Bush is stupid, Cheney is evil, the McCains are rich, John McCain is old and a fuddy-duddy, and to add to that he equated Obama's months and months of giving speeches to adoring crowds (while being covered by a press practically erotically titilated by his words and giving his acceptance speech on a gaudy stage in a stadium) to Sarah Palin's first big speech last night on a pretty standard convention center floor in front of a huge crowd who didn't know what to expect and before a national television audience (even a world-wide one, really).

Sorry Jay. Won't be tuning you in again anytime soon. It wasn't funny to me. Or probably half of America. See, to for the jokes to be funny one would have to accept that the talking points are obviously true.

It just drove home the magnitude of the machine conservatives are up against.

Really? And what is the job of Obama's and Biden's 11 speech writers? Other than "plagarizers in chief", that is?

"She's certainly a good reader", I read somewhere else. "She was a sportscaster, so she knows how to use a teleprompter." And no other political candidates ever use a teleprompter. Especially not The Savior Of the Universe, Barack Obama (peas be upon him). No. Can't be.

Folks, that wasn't just reading. Obama reads. These words inhabited her. They had a natural home inside of her of her whether she wrote them or not, that was clear.

I made the mistake of wandering into one of the cesspools of a comments section in The Paper Of Record, only to find out that Mrs. Palin's speech just proved that she can be "mean".

Mean.

So here's my challenge (although I don't expect any responses because -- nobody reads this blog anyway, especially no Liberals).

Take a quote from the speech. Any quote, and explain to me how it was "mean". If you think it is untrue, you must tell me how it is untrue, AND in either case you must explain what, excactly, was mean about it and how you would have preferred she make her point.

Read in the comments over on a Newsweek article that Palin's a terrible mom, terrible hypocrite, because she cut the budget for special education in Alaska and she has a special needs child.

While it is apparently true that the outgoing administration that she defeated had a 62% budget cut on the books ... Palin ... increased that budget by 175%.

But, it's apparently one of the new set of talking points the activist trolls have taken and run with today.

One hopes that the self-satisfying act of being an "activist" means that, come Nov 4, these folks won't actually feel the need to vote because they've "already done their part" on the innerwebtubes. It seems to have worked that way in the past.

That list seems to consist of, but is not limited to

1) she's a traitor, a successionist because, as governor, she addressed the Alaskan Independence party. Really. She did. There's a video. I watched it. It was pretty good. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwvPNXYrIyI . Talking about common ground but never agreeing on succession. Aren't we supposed to "reach out"?2) She justifies the Iraq war as the will of God. Because there's a video of her saying she prays that we're doing the right thing? Not the same thing. But any talk of God makes some people uncomfortable.3) She had to hire a city manager for Wasilla and she's for limited government. Obviously contradictory. Oh. My. God. 'Course, they're good with it if Obama does it on a much bigger scale.4) She "hired Jack Abramoff's firm to lobby for the city". Tell me, was that before or after he was endicted? (hint: her last mayoral term ended in 2002.) And, everything else about her says to me she's for limited government. Maybe she got disgusted with the whole lobbyist thing.5. She said she will cut cost, well she ran her city to debt when she left. [sic] What were the circumstances? (update: it was largely due to the building of a $20 million sports center -- voted on by the city, and it will be paid off early.) Do you have a mortgage? A car loan? Why? And in her current job, you know ('cause Barack is in denial over this), GOVERNOR of Alaska, she started with a deficit and now has a surplus.6. She has a pregnant 17 y/o daughter - Which immediately disqualifies anybody from running for office, I suppose? Did she get her daughter pregnant? I mean, I know she's tough and all, but I'm pretty sure that's biologically impossible without cloning.7. She has a baby with down syndrome, BUT SHE CUT THE SPECIAL EDUCATION BUDGET for Alaska. No, she didn't. Her predecessor, whom she defeated, was going to cut it by 62%. She increased it by 175%.

I was going to post something on this -- something about how I actually have hope that Palin -- and the situation her nomination has created (which is far bigger than the woman herself) may actually not only bring the reform the Republican Party needs, but the Democratic Party as well.

And I mention that, because -- wouldn't it be nice if the Democratic Party were to wake up and expel the Socialists from the party? Wouldn't that, in fact, make our country safer?

And how better to do it than to hold a mirror up to them that exposes the bitterness and blatant hypocrisy that is at the core of the Progressive Socialist Movement. I think that mirror may just be Sarah Palin.

So I was going to go ahead and point out some of the hypocrisy with a litany of examples. But maybe I should leave that to a conservative female who's better at this than I am anyway. At any rate, she's already done it. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Michelle Malkin on CFA. Who is quite familiar with the phenomenon.

Yeah. After that speech, she's lookin' at her hair and thinkin' "aaah-I dunno...." I think it was supposed to be somewhat of a "fluff" piece (no pun intended).. but really.

I'll tell ya I was lookin' at her hair. I think her hair looks great! I think she's an extremely attractive woman on multiple levels. I love her hair. I love her glasses. We're the same age, and there's nothing about her that says "desparate" to me. I'm glad she's not going to Washington to impress the press. I hope she keeps the "doo" just to spite them. Aaaand because like I said, I like it. And so do a lot of other guys I know. AND my wife does, too. And she's also over 40.

Changing your hairstyle just because the style establishment thinks it's time is not the change we're looking for.

One of my favorite moments during the speech was when the camera wandered over to little Piper holding Trig, and was un-selfconsiously licking her hand and grooming little Trig's hair. I'm sorry. That. Was. Sweet. Heartstrings tugged. Hard.

I'm sure some of our progressive co-citizens would have us believe that Karl Rove was crouched behind her seat at the convention saying, "pssst! Piper... lick your hand and groom the baby. In 3 ... 2 ... 1 ... GO! Oh, and by the way, I'm a hate-monger. And I know where Bin Laden is. Just so you know."

I've had women I know flat gushing at me about Sarah yesterday and today. Men, too. I think she's made a splash.

I am hoping she is the reformer she's been made out to be. Even if she's only half the reformer she's been made out to be, the Republican Party may, just may ... redeem itself in my eyes yet.

I don't pretend Sarah wrote these, but she sure delivered them convincingly. And I wouldn't be surprised if she did have a hand in at least some of them.

I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a "community organizer," except that you have actual responsibilities.

I've learned quickly, these past few days, that if you're not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone.

Listening to [Obama] speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform - not even in the state senate.

(on Obama) This is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting, and never use the word "victory" except when he's talking about his own campaign.

... when the cloud of rhetoric has passed ... when the roar of the crowd fades away ... when the stadium lights go out, and those Styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot - what exactly is our opponent's plan?

In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers. And then there are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change.

[Senator Reid] said, quote, "I can't stand John McCain." Ladies and gentlemen, perhaps no accolade we hear this week is better proof that we've chosen the right man.

The American presidency is not supposed to be a journey of "personal discovery." This world of threats and dangers is not just a community, and it doesn't just need an organizer.

Update: My wife also liked this one, which was more style than substance but, hey, it was great style:

"What's the difference between a pit bull and a hockey mom? .... Lipstick!"

That ougtta keep the Left outta here. Almost sounds like a chant specifically designed to repel them. Check the video out at Morgan's if you didn't see it last night. Fred was my candidate. He didn't win. But at least he's on the team.

So there's a tape of Palin in a church speaking to some students graduating from some class in that church ... and she prays to God that we're doing the right thing in Iraq and that our soldiers are doing right by God's will.

And this is a bad thing?

A good Christian uses his value system -- one of the most time-tested ones around -- to make judgements on what the right thing to do is. From wars to pipelines to what do I say to my neighbor who just lost his dog. A good Christian realizes he is fallible and will often pray that he is doing the right thing, in recognition that there may be doubt. What that means is, he's thinking about it. It is an act of humility.

When anyone decides what he is going to do next, they typically decide what to do based on their value system. They believe it is the right thing to do (typically) ... which is why they go ahead and do it. Religious people have a personification of that abstract value system to make it easier to relate to it. But it's no different from a non-religious person doing something ... their justifications are based upon their beliefs, whether they believe in a God or not.

I don't find it scary when someone prays that they are doing the right thing. I grew up around a bunch of them. The ones that prayed they were doing the right thing were usually the most thoughtful, and the most humble.

The ones that were just convinced that they were right and couldn't possibly be wrong, not so much.

I saw Obama last night comparing the size of his campaign in staff and budget to the staff and budget of Wasilla, Alaska. Nowhere did he mention that she is governor of the State of Alaska, and compare the staff and budget numbers for her current job. It was almost like "Governor? She is???? You're kidding! When did that happen? Nah! She's the Mayor. Town of 9,000. Small potatoes."

That's probably about the most blatant case of mis-direction(dishonesty) I've seen Obama do, personally. Admittedly, I don't go out of my way to watch the guy.

Glenn Beck threw the numbers for the State of Alaska up there, and, not surprisingly, they dwarfed Obama's numbers by a factor of ... well, over 20 and as much as 40... I don't remember beyond that level of detail, depending on whether you're looking at staff or budget. Either way, it's huge.

Incidentally, what experience did Bill Clinton have before he ran for president? You know, top of the ticket? What was his foriegn policy experience?

And this "red flag" .... er "issue" of whether or not Palin was thoroughly vetted by the McCain campaign before she was picked .... are they nuts? Palin's name came up months ago. I knew about it. Lots of bloggers knew about it. It's not like last wednesday night McCain said "gimme a list of Republican female governors ... oh, who's this?" Come on! McCain's been in politics for 26 years. His campaign staff is fully aware of the amped up nature of the campaign, and that every little detail will be scrutinized. Of course the vetted her throroughly.

So here's what they have on her:

She fired a guy she had appointed who didn't fire her ex brother-in-law (after said ex-brother-in-law threatened to kill her father and taze her daughter - oh, and the guy she fired says "no, that's no why she fired me")

Her unwed teenage daughter is pregnant

She was mayor of a small town (supposedly a bad thing? ... Well she's governor of the freakin' state now, bub!)

(this one is bizzare) She's not experienced enough to be VP -- But Obama IS experienced enough to be President.

*gasp* - she's a practicing Christian

That seems to be about it. No wonder they're freaked.

I honestly think they're stunned that McCain picked a woman. This is because they believe their own narrative that conservatives think women should be at home, barefoot and pregnant.

They're also shocked and frightened by the fact that there does exist a conservative woman ... from a small town ... who is succesful, has a family, doesn't need government handouts, and is eloquent and attractive. They're also caught flat-footed by the fact that the conservative response has been overwhelmingly positive. Yeah, they're scared sh*tless.